Tories claim B&NES Council windfall could stave off worst cuts

Tory politicians have claimed that Bath and North East Somerset Council could avoid some of the cuts to services it is planning because it has more money than it expected.

But the Liberal Democrat-run authority says that a one-off £1.6 million surplus and an ongoing £1.4 million bonus do not offer a panacea in the face of unprecedented Government funding cuts.

It says it will be facing a 26 per cent cut in Government funding in the 2015/16 financial year.

The authority has reduced spending on public toilets, libraries, advice services and children’s centres, but is better off because it is expecting to collect £1.1 million more in council tax than planned and has received £450,000 more from the Government than it budgeted for.

Opposition Conservatives have launched an online survey to ask the public how they think the “unexpected windfall” should be spent, ahead of a crunch budget meeting in February.

The survey is at www.bathconservativesurveys.com.

Conservative resources spokesman, Councillor Charles Gerrish, said: “As a result of improving economic conditions, more houses being built, and a better than anticipated funding settlement from Government, B&NES is now expecting to have more in the coming year than it had previously thought.”

He said there was enough to fill 100,000 potholes, employ 150 children’s centre outreach workers, buy 50 new dial-a-ride buses, or take 4.5 per cent off council tax bills.

The council has already said it will be using £500,000 of the £1.4 million tranche to soften the blow of cuts to children’s centres.

Mr Gerrish said: “Obviously the council will continue to face challenges in the years ahead, but I think residents will be pretty surprised to hear that B&NES has far more money available than it had been letting on.

“Some of this money may need to be put aside to protect against further cuts in future, but it is not good financial management for the Lib Dems to simply sit on a pile of money until election year when vital services are being cut now and fees and charges are being hiked.

“Therefore, we are asking local residents for their views on how this money could best be used to ensure the council acts on the priorities of B&NES residents, and would urge local people to go online to complete our budget survey.”

A statement from B&NES said: “Because the council has been innovative and efficient in delivering our services there is a surplus available to use for local priorities. There is a £1.6 million one-off surplus from last year – this money can only be spent once so cannot be used to fund ongoing services. The cabinet will report how they propose to allocate this money at the February budget meeting.

“There is also a £1.4 million ongoing surplus. The cabinet has already announced a proposal to use £500,000 for early years 0-11 services to reduce the £2.3 million savings target. They will also propose an additional £100,000 for public protection services. In light of the council planning for a Government grant reduction of £7 million (equivalent to a cut of 26 per cent) for 2015/16, the remainder will be proposed to help meet the resulting budget gap and go towards balancing our budgets which supports us to deliver the council tax freezes that residents have received for the past three years and in future years.”

15 comments

The work on the Almondsbury interchange was a total waste. I heard it was £65Mil, but could well be £90Mil. Months worth of roadworks and delays and the end result is that during busy times the hard shoulder can be used and there's a variable speed limit. Commuters who work in Aztec west have told me that since the changes the journey time to work is now longer!!! More idiotic failed money wasting projects at a time when the UK is spending 50 BILLION per year just on the interest for our debt. Idiotenomics!

Dan it's from a transport consultant (knows his stuff) who advised The River Regeneration Trust on the Scoping Study for Broadmead Peninsula, Keynsham. Bear in mind it was based upon a two way road similar to that found in a typical housing estate.
I'm not good with roads, but a million pound a Kilometre sounds like a lot of dosh.

There would seem some sense in using a one off pot of money that we may never see again, to prevent something perhaps after the flood schemes of the 1970's we hoped we'd never see again, by getting the flood defences up to 2020 standards rather than those of 50 years ago (no slight intended on the engineers etc of the time who so far have proved to be just about equal to some very unpredictable conditions). I'd be less keen on it being sliced and diced to keep a toilet here, a centre there for one year only to kick those problems down the road for a year - those (essential as they are) need long term committed funding from the ongoing resources - not a one off windfall that gets us back to the same debate next year. So on that basis my theoretical £20 of the money goes in the flood prevention pot!

capndave I would be interested to know where you sourced that figure. The A303 dual for example in 2006 was expected to cost 70Million per mile. Minimum costs are £20 million per new dual carriageway mile at todays prices.

The funding of the children's contact centre should be restored, to ensure that there is a consistent service run in safe premises[they deal with some very volatile relationships] to high safety standards to retain the confidence of the judiciary and ensure that, where it is in the child's best interest, contact is maintained with both parents and their wider families.
Also, I agree with bath1946 that as the Council has had 19 years since the first Disability Discrimination Act to do so, that they ensure that all areas are wheelchair accessible and maintain a network of places for disablwed people to park throughout the city. Retaining independence is important and Dial-a- Ride does not meet the needs of many disabled people who need to be able to visit Bath at any time of the day or night, just like anyone else.

I fully support increased emphasis being placed on river improvements and flood protection. In addition to expenditure on many of the services included in the article such as toilets and citizens advice i would add pavements which generally are in a disgraceful state for wheelchairs.